JEWISH KING JESUS IS COMING AT THE RAPTURE FOR US IN THE CLOUDS-DON'T MISS IT FOR THE WORLD.THE BIBLE TAKEN LITERALLY- WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE MAKES GOOD SENSE-SEEK NO OTHER SENSE-LEST YOU END UP IN NONSENSE.
Prime Minister Harper ends Mideast visit with tour of refugee camp in Jordan
AMMAN,
Jordan - Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced more funding
initiatives Friday to assist Syrian refugees and to aid in the
destruction of Syrian chemical weapons.Harper, on the final day of his visit to Israel and Jordan, made the
announcement during a tour of the Za’atari refugee camp in Jordan, some
12 kilometres from the Syrian border.Harper, who was in Amman Thursday to meet with King Abdullah at his
opulent presidential palace, said an additional $15 million would be
spent to support the international effort to destroy the weapons.The bulk of the money, $10 million, will go to the Organization for
the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, which is overseeing the program.That’s on top of the $2 million Canada gave the OPCW in early 2013 to
help the organization investigate the alleged use of chemical weapons
in Syria.
The remaining $5 million announced Friday will assist the U.S.
Department of Defence in the destruction of chemicals aboard an American
ship.“The use of chemical weapons against Syrian civilians was an atrocity that cannot be allowed to happen again,” said Harper.Harper also announced additional support for 6.5 million internally
displaced people in Syria and the 2.3 million refugees who have fled the
civil war.
He said $150 million would be disbursed this year for humanitarian
needs in Syria and to help Syrians who have taken refuge in Jordan and
other countries.The third Canadian-funded project is designed to help Syrian refugee
children rediscover what many kids around the world take for granted —
the joy of play.
Funding will be provided to enable more than 1,500 teachers and
coaches to use a play-based learning method in partnership with an
organization called Right To Play."Canada’s support will help ensure that children living in Jordanian
communities hosting Syrian refugees have the opportunity to learn, play
and succeed despite difficult circumstances," said Harper.The prime minister added that Canada will do its best to ensure Syrian children "do not become a lost generation."All told, Canada has so far committed more than $630 million in
humanitarian, development and security assistance in response to the
Syrian crisis.
The prime minister and his wife, Laureen, were welcomed at the camp
by a UN official who thanked Canada for its strong support of Jordan.The official filled them in on the size of the camp and the number of
Syrian refugees there, now estimated to number about 125,000.The camp has grown to more than eight square kilometres since it was created in July 2012.Time Magazine has described it as the size of nearly 1,000 American football fields.Harper says camp represents just the tip of the iceberg in regards to the Syrian crisis."This is only one small piece of the refugee crisis." he said."We sometimes forget these are all individual lives ... We are touched by this."After touring the camp, Harper and his wife, Laureen, visited Petra, a
historical and archeological city famous for its rock-cut architecture
and water system.UNESCO says Petra, between the Red Sea and the Dead Sea, has been
inhabited since prehistoric times. It is half-built, half-carved into
rock, and is surrounded by mountains riddled with passages and gorges.
The Harpers stopped and posed for photos on edge of the spectacular valley."We need a geologist," Laureen said with a laugh.One of the prominent features carved into the rock called Al Khazneh,
or the Facade of the Treasury, was used to depict the front of a temple
housing the Holy Grail in the film "Indiana Jones and the Last
Crusade."Harper and his entourage hiked through the stunning crevasse to take
in the Facade of the Treasury and the prime minister and his wife posed
for more photos.
OPEN LETTER TO HARPER ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENTS
http://israndjer.blogspot.ca/2014/01/open-letter-to-stephen-harper-of-canada.html
Letter writers express anger, shame towards Harper, Baird on Palestine
By Mike Blanchfield, The Canadian Press |-JAN 24,14-yahoonews
OTTAWA
- The Harper government was flooded with angry letters from Canadians
after it opposed the Palestinian bid for statehood at the United
Nations, newly disclosed documents show.More than 1,000 letters arrived over several weeks in late 2012 and
early 2013 at the offices of Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Foreign
Affairs Minister John Baird and several other Conservative MPs, the vast
majority of them complaining that the government was not representing
the balanced and fair-minded views of Canadian citizens on the divisive
Middle East issue.More than 80 per cent of the correspondence expressed clear
opposition to the Conservative government's own vocal attempts to block
the Palestinian bid for greater recognition at the UN.The letters, released recently under the Access to Information Act,
emerge just as Harper and a large delegation of Conservative MPs,
cabinet ministers and Canadian business, religious and cultural leaders
prepare to wrap up a week-long visit to Israel and Jordan.Some of the writers — their identities were excised before the
documents were released — expressed shame and anger, while others
described themselves as Tory voters who would be voting differently in
2015 because of their stand.
Many expressed embarrassment for their country on the world stage
because of the Conservatives' stance — notably Baird's November 2012
speech to the UN General Assembly that passionately opposed the
Palestinian bid.In one January 2013 letter, a writer expressed dismay at "the
unconditional support given to Israel by the prime minister and his
party. I believe this stance contradicts the opinions of the vast
majority of Canadians."Another noted, "I know that courting the Jewish vote is important to
you. But the Palestinians have had a tough time in the last
half-century. Couldn't you be a little nicer to them?"Many criticized the Harper government for refusing to publicly
denounce Israel for building illegal settlements on Palestinian
territory — something the prime minister pointedly told reporters
travelling to Israel with him this week that he had no intention of
doing.Indeed, the settlement issue was mentioned repeatedly in the more
than 1,360 pages of correspondence that was reviewed by The Canadian
Press.In all, the pages contained more than 1,030 letters, with more than
830 expressing condemnation of the government's Middle East policy. More
than 180 wrote in support of the government.This flurry of letter writing mainly took place in the days leading
up to and the weeks following the UN General Assembly vote on Nov. 29,
2012, in which the Palestinian Authority overwhelmingly won greater
recognition.Only a handful of countries — Canada, the United States, Israel, and
six smaller nations — voted against the Palestinians. Baird's speech to
the General Assembly that day was a lightning rod for letter writers.Baird was flooded with letters in the days leading up to his speech —
his opposition to the Palestinian bid was publicly known — urging him
to change his position, or deriding him for a stance and rhetoric that
many realized could not be swayed.Some letters writers hurled angry, personal insults. Others wrote to
Harper; one demanded to know whether the prime minister knew what his
foreign minister was up to and whether he had "spoken up against John
Baird's dreadful stance."All of the letters eventually passed through Baird's office; the PMO appeared to copy him on everything sent to Harper."Shameful — shameful — shameful. What a disgusting Canadian you are,
making us all ashamed of your biased and hypocritical position," one
writer told Baird the day before his UN speech.Another urged him to "stop spitting your venom at the United Nations."One writer, having voted for Baird in the past, pledged never to do
so again. "The current Conservative view will be on the wrong side of
history and does not reflect the views of the majority of Canadians,"
the letter read.Another added: "Canada is becoming a joke to the rest of the world."Several Conservative MPs who received critical letters forwarded them
to Baird, asking for an answer they could provide their angry
constituents.On the day of Baird's speech, then-Alberta Conservative MP Ted
Menzies, who retired late last year, forwarded a series of letters from
an angry constituent that he had been corresponding with."I no longer consider myself a PC voter at the federal level," the
writer told Menzies. "I will not be voting PC next election!!!"At various times, the writers said they were "mortified" or "ashamed"
or "disappointed" at a government that was "out of touch" on the issue.
Baird was called a "spoiled child" by one, while another called the government a "Zionist lapdog.""Your government sickens me," said another.Despite a preponderance of negative sentiment, there is nonetheless a trickle of support for the Conservatives."It is to Canada's credit, yourself, and your government that you
took a moral position at the United Nations, a body that sadly lacks any
integrity when it comes to dealing with Israel, and is challenged in
many other areas too," one writer told Harper and Baird four days after
the UN vote.Another supportive constituent of Baird's fondly recalled him
knocking on their door nine years earlier, when he was a member of the
Ontario legislature."At the door, you asked for my vote, I remember asking you what your
opinion was on the subject of Israel. You wowed me with your historical
knowledge of the Middle East conflict, and your appreciation of Israel,"
the letter said."You told me you believed in the Jewish state."Several others, some of whom described themselves as Jewish, offered
sincere thanks to the prime minister for siding with Israel."God bless Canada and Israel forever!!" said one.Some correspondents offered thoughtful anecdotes, and a small number
of others offered no position, but asked Harper or Baird for more
information on theirs.In a handwritten note, Harper was asked if he had ever travelled
without a delegation "to the Palestine occupied area of Israel?" The
woman, who said she travelled there with husband in 2010, found
"deplorable" living conditions. She Canada should be standing up for the
"underprivileged."
"Our Parliament and you, Mr. prime minister, have shirked your
humanitarian duty by voting with the United States. I am ashamed of this
action."Harper departed Israel on Wednesday after becoming the first Canadian
prime minister to speak to the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. He
returns home Saturday after visiting neighbouring Jordan, capping his
first trip to the Middle East.Harper was feted by the Israelis during his visit with an honorary
university degree, as well as a tour of a bird sanctuary that will bear
his name.He also visited the West Bank, pledging $66 million in new aid to help the Palestinians build their battered economy.
Follow @mblanchfield on Twitter
And here are the bounderies of the land that Israel will inherit either through war or peace or God in the future. God says its Israels land and only Israels land. They will have every inch God promised them of this land in the future.
Egypt east of the Nile River, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, The southern part of Turkey and the Western Half of Iraq west of the Euphrates. Gen 13:14-15, Psm 105:9,11, Gen 15:18, Exe 23:31, Num 34:1-12, Josh 1:4.ALL THIS LAND ISRAEL WILL DEFINATELY OWN IN THE FUTURE, ITS ISRAELS NOT ISHMAELS LAND.
12 TRIBES INHERIT LAND IN THE FUTURE
Australian FM’s settlement empathy prompts furious dispute
Julie
Bishop’s refusal in Times of Israel interview to brand settlements as
illegal provokes bitter row between PLO and Australian Jewish leaders
A bitter verbal battle has
erupted in Australia over the legal status of Israeli settlements, with
Jewish leaders and top Palestinian officials sparring over
pro-settlement comments Foreign Minister Julie Bishop made last week to
The Times of Israel. The argument reached its peak on Friday, with
conflicting op-eds and comments flying back and forth from Palestinian
leaders and Australian Jewish officials.Bishop
“wants to reinvent international law and call Israeli settlements
legal. Or what else was Bishop trying to accomplish by showing her
support to Israeli settlements?” Palestinian chief peace negotiator Saeb
Erekat
wrote Friday in the Sydney Morning Herald.
“If Bishop wanted to show solidarity with an occupation that harms the
rights of an occupied population, she did well. I would be unsurprised
if her next step was a cup of coffee with her Israeli counterpart,
Avigdor Lieberman, in the illegal settlement of Nokdim, where he lives,
in land stolen from Bethlehem.”Australia is now the only country, besides
Israel, that considers the settlements legal, wrote Erekat, who is also a
senior member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s executive
committee. “If Bishop wanted to support the negotiations process, she
did the opposite… The terms of reference for negotiations do not include
legitimising illegal Israeli settlements, but ending the Israeli
occupation that began in 1967.”In an immediate response to Erekat’s article,
Peter Wertheim, the executive director of the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry, accused him of making “false and inflammatory
accusations against Israel..“This manner of conduct is unbecoming of the
representative of an aspiring state which seeks to take its place among
the family of peace-loving nations,” Wertheim told The Times of Israel.
“We sincerely hope that the PLO and its negotiating team will focus on
the enormous and grave tasks before them instead of slandering those
with whom they are negotiating and diverting themselves with clumsy
forays into Australian politics.”In an
exclusive interview with The Times of Israel
on January 15, Bishop appeared to contest the view that Israeli
settlements anywhere beyond the 1967 lines are illegal under
international law. “I would like to see which international law has
declared them illegal,” she said, adding that she did not want to
“prejudge the fundamental issues,” which should instead be discussed in
the peace negotiations.Bishop, who made her comments during a short
visit in Israel, also defended her government’s decision to abstain or
vote against anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations as “balanced”
and “not one-sided.”The position that settlements breach
international law — adopted by the UN Security Council, the European
Union and many other states and international bodies, but rejected by
Israel — is based on an interpretation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 49, paragraph 6, states that an occupying power “shall not
deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the
territory it occupies.” Violations of the convention are considered war
crimes under international law. Israel is a party to the convention and
therefore bound by it.Bishop’s unwillingness to condemn Israel’s settlements
immediately caused a stir among Palestinians and some Australian Jews. PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi on Sunday
released a first statement
saying the foreign minister’s position represents “dangerous shifts in
Australian foreign policy” and called for an official clarification of
Australian policy on the issue.“I would like to remind the Australian
government that in accordance with international human rights law and
international humanitarian law, all settlements are illegal,” Ashrawi
wrote, citing the Geneva Convention and other legal sources purportedly
proving the settlements’ illegality. Bishop’s comments are a “willful
defiance of international consensus,” Ashrawi stated.Some Australian Jews joined the chorus of
protest. “For Australia to refrain from any criticism in the UN, or to
cast doubt on the agreement in the international community that the
occupation is illegal, and cruel, is a highly irresponsible and damaging
act by this country, the heads of the Australian Jewish Democratic
Society, Larry Stillman and Jordy Silverstein,
wrote in a January 17 letter to Bishop.Next, Australia’s former foreign minister Bob
Carr — Bishop’s immediate predecessor, who is now in the opposition —
said her position showed “
an ignorance of international law,” adding that considering Israeli settlements illegal was a “commonplace and commonsense opinion.”‘Bishop’s actual statement was reasonable, indeed innocuous’
Bishop has so far been silent on the
controversy. But Wertheim’s Executive Council of Australian Jewry has
taken up her defense, weighing in on the legal debate about the correct
interpretation of international law as it concerns Israeli settlements.“At a time when Israeli-Palestinian peace
talks are ongoing and delicately poised, Bishop’s actual statement was
reasonable, indeed innocuous,” Wertheim, and the Council’s public
affairs officer, Alex Ryvchin, wrote Friday
in an op-ed in The Age.
“Bishop prudently sought to avoid acting as judge and jury on a
bitterly contested and unresolved legal question. After all, Israel and
the Palestinians have themselves agreed that the question of settlements
is one of the core issues to be resolved by the delimitation of a final
border in the course of final status negotiations between the parties.”Wertheim and Ryvchin rejected Ashrawi’s
assertion that the settlements violate international law. The Geneva
Convention and The Hague Regulations do not mention Israel specifically,
and the often-cited 2004 International Court of Justice opinion, which
claims settlements do contravene international law, is merely a
non-binding advisory opinion and not legally determinative, they stated.Whether settlements are illegal under
international law, they wrote, “is a serious legal question that is
hotly disputed.” While they noted that there has never been a definitive
ruling, they quoted a 2012 legal opinion issued by James Crawford, a
prominent Australian international law expert, who stated that some
settlements are “probably lawful.”In any event, they added, a “preponderance of
opinion, one way or another, by legal experts does not decide the
issue.” And Ashrawi’s claim that Bishop defied international consensus
is “utterly baseless,” they posited, as there is no such consensus.
“Australia is a sovereign nation with a democratically elected
government which makes decisions according to its own assessment of
Australia’s national interests, they went on. “Ashrawi’s crude attempt
to bully Australia with the specter of a non-existent ‘international
consensus’ should be ignored.”Ashrawi, in response later Friday,
published a lengthy statement
— her second on this issue — asserting,“It is incontrovertible that
Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory have been
established in contravention of international law.”“While the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion is not
legally binding according to the ICJ Statute, the legal instruments and
obligations to which it refers are,” read the statement, issued by the
PLO Executive Committee’s Department of Culture and Information, which
she heads. ”This includes binding resolutions of the UN Security Council
and multilateral treaties to which Israel is a party, including
international human rights treaties and the Fourth Geneva Convention.”The PLO’s statement also referred to
Crawford’s legal opinion, arguing that it related to the Nahal
settlements, which were established and populated by soldiers. While
Crawford “is correct that these settlements were probably lawful under
the law of occupation at the time they were established,” these
settlements were “always intended to be converted into civilian
settlements, which have no lawful military purpose.”Quoting a host of UN Security Council and
General Assembly resolutions, her statement concluded that there is a
“wide consensus among nations that Israel’s settlements have been
established in breach of international law.”‘We reject the PLO’s assertion that its legal claims about the settlements are incontrovertible truths’Responding to Ashrawi’s second pronouncement
on this issue, Wertheim, the director of the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry, told The Times of Israel that this time around, her
words are “much more cautious and credible” than her first statement.
“Ashrawi [initially] claimed not only that the Fourth Geneva Convention
and Hague Regulations apply to the settlements, which is arguable, but
also that these and other international conventions ‘explicitly’ refer
to and condemn Israel, which is plainly false. We corrected this
particular error and our correction has not been refuted,” he said.“We reject the PLO’s assertion that its legal
claims about the settlements are ‘incontrovertible’ truths,” Wertheim
continued. “International legal instruments are binding on states that
are parties to them but the application of those instruments to
particular fact situations is frequently a matter of dispute. The
application of international law to the settlements is such a dispute.”The Geneva Convention article that outlaws the
“deport or transfer” of settlers into occupied territory implies
compulsion, “and Israel has never compelled anyone to be a settler. The
settlers have made that choice themselves,” Wertheim continued. “The
argument is whether the financial, tax and other material benefits which
settlers have received from the state amount to a ‘transfer’ by Israel
of parts of its own civilian population into the West Bank. This is not a
straightforward question but clearly a matter for judicial
interpretation.”Settlements also should not be considered a
“land grab,” Wertheim contended. “In the past Israel has dismantled
settlements in the Sinai and Gaza and vacated those areas in the pursuit
of peace.”
JERUSALEM DIVIDED
GENESIS 25:20-26
20 And Isaac was forty years old (A BIBLE GENERATION NUMBER=1967 + 40=2007+) when he took Rebekah to wife, the daughter of Bethuel the Syrian of Padanaram, the sister to Laban the Syrian.
21 And Isaac intreated the LORD for his wife, because she was barren: and the LORD was intreated of him, and Rebekah his wife conceived.
22 And the children (2 NATIONS IN HER-ISRAEL-ARABS) struggled together within her; and she said, If it be so, why am I thus? And she went to enquire of the LORD.
23 And the LORD said unto her, Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels;(ISRAEL AND THE ARABS) and the one people shall be stronger than the other people;(ISRAEL STRONGER THAN ARABS) and the elder shall serve the younger.(LITERALLY ISRAEL THE YOUNGER RULES (ISSAC)(JACOB-LATER NAME CHANGED TO ISRAEL) OVER THE OLDER ARABS (ISHMAEL)(ESAU)
24 And when her days to be delivered were fulfilled, behold, there were twins in her womb.
25 And the first came out red, all over like an hairy garment; and they called his name Esau.(THE OLDER AN ARAB)
26 And after that came his brother out, and his hand took hold on Esau's heel; and his name was called Jacob:(THE YOUNGER-ISRAELI) and Isaac was threescore (60) years old when she bare them.(1967 + 60=2027)(COULD BE THE LAST GENERATION WHEN JERUSALEM IS DIVIDED AMOUNG THE 2 TWINS)(THE 2 TWINS WANT JERUSALEM-THE DIVISION OF JERUSALEM TODAY)(AND WHOS IN CONTROL OF JERUSALEM TODAY-THE YOUNGER ISSAC-JACOB-ISRAEL)(AND WHO WANTS JERUSALEM DIVIDED-THE OLDER,ESAU-ISHMAEL (THE ARABS)
ISAIAH 28:14-19 (THIS IS THE 7 YR TREATY COVENANT OF DANIEL 9:27)
14 Wherefore hear the word of the LORD, ye scornful men, that rule this people which is in Jerusalem.
15 Because ye have said, We have made a covenant with death, and with hell are we at agreement; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, it shall not come unto us: for we have made lies our refuge, and under falsehood have we hid ourselves:
16 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.
17 Judgment also will I lay to the line, and righteousness to the plummet: and the hail shall sweep away the refuge of lies, and the waters shall overflow the hiding place.
18 And your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand; when the overflowing scourge shall pass through, then ye shall be trodden down by it.
19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
Kerry, Netanyahu Discuss Peace Talks At Davos
US Secretary of State approaches Israeli Prime Minister at World Economic Forum to push US agenda for peace - even abroad.-By AFP and Arutz Sheva Staff-First Publish: 1/24/2014, 2:10 PM-INN
John Kerry and Binyamin Netanyahu-Flash 90
US Secretary of State John Kerry met Friday with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as he seeks to
force the US's agenda for peace between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA), according to
AFP.
The two men held closed talks on the sidelines of the World Economic
Forum in the Swiss mountain town of Davos, ahead of what Washington has
billed as a major address by Kerry on the Middle East to the gathering
later in the day.Amid turbulence and upheaval across many Arab countries, including
the war in Syria, the US administration's foreign policy in the region
has been heavily criticised at
home and by key Gulf allies for lacking focus.But Kerry was expected to hit back at the accusations to "talk about
our commitment to engagement in every region of the world and our
commitment to diplomacy as a first resort," a senior State Department
official said."He
will make the argument
that the myth of disengagement - and particularly the notion that the US
is pulling back from the Middle East -- is not only false, but flies in
the face of several major diplomatic initiatives in the region."Asking not to be named, the official pointed to the interim deal with
Iran to rein in its nuclear weapons program and an agreement to rid
Syria of its chemical weapons.The US has also been a prime
mover behind efforts to bring together the Syrian opposition and the regime to end the three-year war in ongoing talks in Geneva.Kerry's talks with Netanyahu on Friday were expected to "be
pretty lengthy," a US official said, after he met earlier in the week
with Israel's top negotiator Tzipi Livni. The PA negotiating team is
expected in Washington
next week.The US-brokered peace talks that began in July, after a three-year
hiatus in direct negotiations, have faltered over seemingly
irreconcilable demands from both sides, failing to bring any glimpse of a
final agreement that would end decades of conflict.Kerry, who has made 11 trips to Israel and the PA in his first
year in office, is trying to hammer out a framework deal to chart the
talks going forward, which would set down guidelines on the toughest
issues such as the contours of a future Palestinian state and the fate
of Jerusalem for the months ahead.The two sides have agreed to stay at the negotiating table for nine
months, until some time in late April. But with the deadline looming,
there has been mounting criticism by both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs
as Kerry has pushed them to accept tough compromises.Kerry's push comes just hours after a
report surfaced
claiming that Kerry, as well as US President Barack Obama, have
expressed "disappointment" in Jewish criticism over their policies on
Israel, which
analysts and
Israeli officials have repeatedly noted place Israel at
strategic risk. The report claims that both officials see a
"Jewish lobby" in Congress; if true, both officials would be guilty of adhering to a myth which has
deep anti-Semitic roots.
Israel Among Ten Most Powerful Nations In World
Recent
study of National Power Index ranks Israel tenth; research is composite
index of factors including military and economic capability.-By Ari Yashar-First Publish: 1/24/2014, 12:35 PM-INN
Israeli flag (file)-Flash 90
Israel, the tiny nation that defied history in coming back to life
after 2,000 years of exile, is among the top 10 most powerful nations in
the world according to a recent
research study.
Market Business News recently reported on the 2012 National
Power Index (NPI), released by the Foundation for National Security
Research (FNSR), a New Delhi-based think tank. The study is a
comprehensively revised version of the previous indexes published in
India's National Security Annual Review (INSAR) since 2002.According to the research, Israel achieved a 32.19 NPI ranking, placing it tenth on
the list of the world's most powerful countries.The NPI is a quantification of a nation's power, meaning its ability
to influence global events. The ranking is based on a composite of
indexes of statistical analysis in terms of economy, military,
diplomacy, technology and population. Each factor has a certain weight,
and the composite index includes a detailed analysis of individual
component.The research appraises Israel as a country of 8 million, with a GDP of $272.7 billion and 176,500 active military personnel.Israel stands out in military capability where it is ranked 6th in
the world, and technological capability where it ranks 4th. Its
capabilities ranked 25 in economy, 17 in population and 19 in foreign
affairs.The index study notes that Israel has the strongest military in the
Middle East, and is among the world's leaders in technology and science.
It also notes that Israel ranks 15 on the UN development index,
illustrating the high quality of life in the Jewish state.Unsurprisingly, The United States headed the list of most powerful
nations, ranking in at 77.77 on the NPI. It was followed by China
(58.66) and Russia (43.36). The remaining nations on the list were France, Japan, the UK, Germany, India and Canada in that order.A map by Maps of World displays the 10 leading powers in highlighted
colors, including tiny Israel among its massive fellow powerful nations.Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu encouraged
investment in Israel this week
at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, touting Israel's innovation in
developing "more conceptual products per capita than any nation on earth."
Peres: Boycott Iran like South Africa
Speaking at Davos conference, president insists Jerusalem and Tehran need not be enemies, but was unmoved by Rouhani’s speech
The international community
should boycott Iran beyond economic sanctions, as it did to South
Africa, said President Shimon Peres, speaking Friday morning at the
World Economic Forum annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.“All
of a sudden, they were boycotted by the rest of the world,” Peres said
of Apartheid-era South Africa. “They weren’t invited to football games.
They weren’t invited to the Olympics. They weren’t invited to anyplace.
All of a sudden, they felt alone. If Iran will continue to do what they
are doing, then automatically, I believe, in addition to the sanctions,
they will see that the world doesn’t like these sorts of bluffs, which
are so dangerous.”Peres was speaking at a Q&A session with WEF founder, Klaus Schwab.
The president said he was not impressed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s Davos speech.“The declaration was so promising and the
omission was so obvious,” Peres said, referring to Rouhani’s speech on
Thursday in which he called for better relations with all countries in
the world.“Do you include all countries?”
Schwab had asked the Iranian leader after his speech, presumably
referring to Israel. There was a hum of laughter and expectation from
the audience.Rouhani paused for a moment and laughed.
“There are no exceptions; we wish for a better future and to have
beneficial relations with all that we recognize,” he then said with a
smile.Rouhani’s statements on Thursday thus evidently excluded Israel, which is not recognized by the Islamic Republic.“You got a
smile, it’s nice, but it’s not an answer…,” said Peres Friday. “For the
time being, it is a happy story… The part that you omit is more
important than the part that you announce.”
Still, said Peres, the two countries are not fated to hostilities forever.“For us, Iran is not an enemy. We don’t want to fight. We are not historically hostile.”Earlier in a CNN interview, Peres said he
stood by his previously declared readiness to meet with Rouhani. The
problem with Iran’s president is “his positions, not his declarations,”
Peres said.Turning to the ongoing peace talks between the
Israelis and the Palestinians, Peres said that neither side has an
alternative to peace.“All told, the present situation is killing
the Arab world. The terror is tearing them to pieces… Israel offers, in
real terms, a sincere peace.”Peres was pessimistic about this week’s
conference in Switzerland, known as Geneva II, to find a solution to the
brutal conflict in Syria.“All the elements which exist today in Syria
are not elements for solutions, but elements for confrontation,” he
said. “We have to discover a new element that may unite them.”Schwab asked Peres about his secret to staying
young, noting, “You are the oldest participant on paper, but in your
mind, you are one of the youngest participants.”“The greatest entertainment and interest is in
working, and not resting,” Peres told the crowd, and urged them to
focus more on the joys of work and less on vacationing.
Peres said he would continue working after he
steps down from office this year. “I don’t need the official title to do
anything,” he claimed.The discussion ended with Schwab presenting Peres with a bell, in recognition of his efforts at “tolling the bell of peace.”The president received a standing ovation from the crowd as he left the stage.Also Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
addressed a special conference called “Risk and Responsibility in a
Hyperconnected World.” Justice Minister Tzipi Livni was also in
attendance, according to a statement released by Netanyahu’s office.Netanyahu spoke about cybersecurity, noting Israel’s many leading companies in the field.
01/23/2014 VATICAN INSIDER
Bishop Farrell highlights importance of Pope’s meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew in Jerusalem
Bishop Brian Farrell (Photo by: Catholic News Agency)
In an exclusive interview, Bishop Brian Farrell, Secretary of
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, talks about next May’s
meeting in Jerusalem between Pope Francis and Patriarch Bartholomew,
and the current state of the Catholic-Orthodox dialogue
gerard o'connell
rome
Pope Francis will go on “a pilgrimage of prayer”
to the Holy Land, May 24-26. The main purpose of his visit is to
commemorate the historic 1964 meeting in Jerusalem between Pope Paul VI
and the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, Athenagoras, which
significantly transformed relations between the Catholic and Orthodox
Churches. Looking ahead to the May meeting in Jerusalem and the ongoing Catholic-Orthodox
dialogue, I interviewed Irish-born Bishop Brian Farrell, who worked in
the Vatican’s Secretariat of State from 1981 to 2002, when John Paul II
appointed him as Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Promoting
Christian Unity. He has served in this role under three Popes, and has
participated in the major Catholic-Orthodox meetings since then.
The following is Part I of the extensive interview
he granted me recently. Part II will appear in the coming days, and
deals with Roman Catholic-Russian Orthodox relations, the fragmentation
of Christian Churches, and the new horizons of ecumenism.
Q. Pope Francis will go on a pilgrimage
to the Holy Land in May and meet the Ecumenical Patriarch of
Constantinople, Bartholomew 1 and other Christian leaders in Jerusalem
for the 50th anniversary of the historic encounter of their predecessors
-Paul VI and Athenagoras, there on 5 January 1964. How significant
will the meeting in May be?
A. Well, as somebody once said, historical
events can only happen once. Their anniversaries are never as effective
as the first time; it’s impossible to repeat such an extraordinary event
as happened in 1964. Fifty years later, however, it’s truly important
that we have a public re-affirmation, on the part of the two Churches,
of the intentions of Paul VI and Athenagoras at that time, and of the
progress that has come as a result of that great meeting. So I think
that what we have here is both an affirmation that we’ve been on the
right track and a kind of intensification of the relationship so that we
can move on now to further steps towards communion.
Q. Do you expect something particular to come out of the Jerusalem meeting?
A. I would hope that the meeting
would be well prepared and, in that sense, we are looking at the
possibility of a small commission to work on it, just as happened before
the 1964 meeting. A commission of the then Secretariat for promoting
Christian Unity with the Ecumenical Patriarchate worked on the details,
not just of the protocol but also of the content. In this case too, I
think we could repeat that and have a commission that would work in the
next few months to prepare a statement of both leaders that would take
account of the growth in communion already achieved and would be
inspiring for the continuation of this work.
Now, the great thing that has happened (since
then) is that so many prejudices have been overcome; so many
misunderstandings have been clarified. But we are talking about moving
together towards communion as Churches, so it’s not enough for the
leaders to get together, it’s not enough for the theologians to sit in
the commission and work on these questions, we have to move the whole
body of the Church towards communion. So a meeting like this is a
hugely symbolic event that sends ripples throughout the People of God,
and that’s essential, that’s necessary!
Q. After the1964 meeting both sides the
Catholic and Orthodox sides lifted their mutual excommunications.
Obviously nothing so important can happen in May, so what can we expect
then?
A. We don’t have any more
centuries-old excommunications to lift, so there wouldn’t be anything
like that. But we have a dialogue that is looking very seriously, very
deeply, at the fundamental question that still divides us: the exercise
of authority in the Church, teaching authority, governance in the
Church.
It's clear that after a thousand years of
separation, East and West have gone their own ways, and it’s going to be
very difficult to find the model of the exercise of authority that will
be fully acceptable to both sides. But if, with the help of these kinds
of meetings, we could take the edges off the memories and reach a kind
of healing of memories, then specific issues can be dealt with more
positively. For Catholics, I think it is necessary that we do
not project into the first millennium what we understand now to be the
exercise of the Petrine ministry. In other words, we have to learn to
distinguish what is essential and what is not, and we don’t really make a
big enough effort to do that.On the Orthodox side, we have to recognize that
the Orthodox Churches, in general, are living in free societies for
first time; some of them for the very first time, some for the first
time in many centuries or decades. Not only that, but they are
also faced with the reality that they are no longer tied to a particular
area or region or country or ethnicity. Most of them now have
emigrants all over the world, and therefore communities all over the
world, and this is leading to an internal transformation that still
needs to be assimilated within Orthodoxy. And we have to give them time
to do that. From being limited to their ethnic origins, they are now
becoming global Churches; you have the Greek Orthodox all over, you have
the Russian Orthodox all over, you have the Romanian Orthodox all over,
you have the Serbian Orthodox all over, and the others too to some
extent. So in this sense we have to be patient enough to understand how
they are going to absorb the diaspora into their life, and the changes
that this will bring.
I think, therefore, that we should recognize that our dialogue at the present time cannot reach ultimate conclusions. We
are in a process; we are in one of those historical moments that change
our perspective on things, on important things, and that therefore all
our discussions about the Petrine ministry and synodality are a work in
progress. It’s not enough for the theologians to sit in the commissions
and write down what they think should happen. It’s out of the life of
the Church, out of the life of a huge body of Christians, Catholics and
Orthodox, that these processes will be clarified. And that needs time.
Q. You had this discussion around the
Ravenna document in October 2007, but the Russians were not present at
the end, they didn’t sign on to it at the end. Would it be correct to
say that you haven’t yet moved beyond that in this whole discussion?
A. Well, in one sense we
haven’t reached a clear, new position beyond that, but this does not
mean that a lot of work hasn’t been done, is not being done, to move on
from Ravenna to the next stage.
That next stage revolves around the role of the
Bishop of Rome and the exercise of synodality in the Church in the first
millennium, East and West. We’ve had two meetings of the
plenary of the commission, in Paphos (2009) and Vienna (2010), and
various meetings of the coordinating committee. What we have here are
two different theological cultures in conversation: it was clear in the
discussion that the Latin and Catholic side tended, as we always do in
our theological discussions, to start with the biblical basis and then
do the history and then do the theology on the basis of the facts;
whereas Eastern theological culture is marked much more by a kind of
ideal image of the Church, from which you then develop the practical
aspects, and it was not possible in a week to bridge the gap between
these two very different perspectives.
I remember sitting in the commission and listening
to the discussion and suddenly realizing, very clearly in my own mind,
that the narrative of the life of the Church in the first millennium as
it’s told in the West and as it’s told in the East is very different. Therefore
we have to learn to see things from each other’s point of view, and we
haven’t really got to the point where we can do that easily and
sufficiently.
Still, we now have a working document for a further meeting of the commission, which will be held in Serbia, next September.But both the Catholic and the Orthodox members of
the coordinating commission are somewhat unhappy with the working
document, so we are going there knowing that we have a defective basis.
The discussion, therefore, will be difficult, and none of the members
expect that there is going to be a conclusive document at the end of
this next plenary. We’ve just got to realize that it is going to
take longer (than we had expected), because the subject matter is so
central, so much in the life of the Church, it’s just going to take a
lot more time and study.
Q. Given this situation, I’m sure you would
agree that it was highly significant that Patriarch Bartholomew came for
the inauguration of Pope Francis on March 19 who fom the beginning
Francis described himself as “The Bishop of Rome”.A. The presence of the Patriarch was very significant. It
was the first time ever that such a thing happened. It was a huge sign
of how far we have moved since formal relations began after the Second
Vatican Council. And I go back to an idea that I keep repeating: this
meeting of the heads of the Churches is very important because it sets
the pace, but these meetings will not produce their full fruit until the
whole body of the faithful accepts their significance. That’s why
ecumenism at the local level is so important, that’s why it’s necessary
for us to continue to explain the processes that ar
e taking effect.
EU data bill delayed until after May elections
BRUSSELS - The EU's revamped data
protection law will not be adopted before the European Parliament
elections with several member states seeking to weaken it.EU justice commissioner Viviane Reding, the European Parliament lead
negotiators on the package, the Greek EU presidency and the incoming
Italian EU presidency Wednesday (22 January) agreed to set the deadline
until before the end of the year.“They have elaborated a road map and now they need to deliver on it
basically but I think the political agreement to get this done before
the end of the year is there,” Reding’s spokesperson Mina Andreeva told
this website.
German Green MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht, who is steering the regulation
through parliament, said the timetable aims at a mandate for
negotiations in June and the beginning of inter-instutitional
negotiations in July.
“If it will be possible to stick to this timetable, this would be good news and important,” he told this website in an email.But the deadline agreement does not guarantee the package, which
includes a general data protection regulation and a directive on law
enforcement, will be adopted.Member states still have to reach a general approach before kicking
off negotiations with the European Parliament and the European
Commission.The parliament and the commission had hoped to get the package adopted before the European elections in May.The civil liberties committee last October was given the mandate to
start negotiations right away but member states at a summit in December
failed to reach an agreement among themselves.The delay means deputies will now have to vote to start formal
negotiations with member states at the plenary session either in March
or in April.EU insiders are hoping the member states will at least reach a
partial approach in March and then a full agreement over the summer.The delays are caused, in part, by a handful of member states that
want to weaken the regulation, which aims at harmonising data protection
rules across the bloc.
Among the core group is the UK, along with Denmark, Hungary, and
Slovenia. All four are pushing to turn the regulation into a directive.Unlike a regulation, a directive gives member states room to manoeuvre and interpret the EU law to their advantage.Germany is also among the delaying camp of member states but for
different reasons. The Germans support the regulation but do not want it
applied to the public sector. “Obviously the German government is against European-wide common
rules. This behaviour is irresponsible against the EU citizens,” said
Albrecht.Support from Poland, seen a staunch ally of the reforms, is also
waning, according to their data protection authority Wojciech
Wiewiorowski.Wiewiorowsk, at a panel on data protection organised by the CPDP
conference in Brussels on Wednesday, said the European commission had
exhausted its political will to pressure member states to get the
package adopted.He said support in Poland is dropping because the regulation, announced two years ago by the commission, is taking too long.Member states in October had agreed that the data protection package should be in place by the latest in 2015.
EU sends mixed message on Ukraine, as death toll mounts
European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso told him by phone on
Thursday (23 January) that he risks EU sanctions, or, in his words,
“possible consequences for bilateral relations,” if things do not get
back to normal.Some EU countries have voiced similar views, including Lithuania, Poland and Sweden.But the same day, German Chancellor Angela Merkel told press in
Berlin that: “Sanctions against Ukraine are not on the order of the day …
What is important now is to stop the violence.”The lack of clarity at the top is reflected lower down.“I have no instructions from my capital on where I’m supposed to go
or what I’m supposed to be doing,” a diplomatic source at one EU embassy
in Kiev told this website.Meanwhile, two EU envoys, Stefan Fuele and Catherine Ashton, are to meet Yanukovych in Ukraine in the coming days.Leading opposition MPs also met him for a second time this week on Thursday.The talks come after two months of increasingly violent protests
against his decision, last November, to opt for closer Russian ties
instead of EU integration.But away from the negotiating table, Yanukovych’s security forces are
suspected of killing six people and abducting up to 40 others in recent
days in an attempt to terrorise the opposition movement.
Four of the victims were shot by “snipers” in Kiev city centre, while
two were kidnapped and “assassinated,” according to Valentyn
Nalyvaichenko, a former head of Ukraine’s internal intelligence service,
the SBU, now an opposition MP.Suspicion surrounds special police units, such as Berkut, Sokol or
Omega, as well as Alpha, a counter-terrorist squad in the SBU.But Nalyvaichenko told EUobserver no one will know who ordered the
deaths unless there is an independent and international inquiry.He added that the killings, Berkut's beatings of protesters, and the
work of hired “provocateurs” are the main threats to stability: “There
are gangs, agents provocateurs, walking around at night in Kiev, beating
up innocent people and setting cars on fire, with no reaction from
local law enforcement officers. This has to stop.”There are several scenarios for how things could get worse.But few for how they might improve, short of Yanukovych giving in to
demands to hold early elections, effectively ceding power and putting
himself at risk of jail.If he opts to crush the opposition by force, he has plenty of resources at hand.Ukraine’s ordinary police has poor morale and training.But Oleg Martynenko, a Ukrainian security analyst, estimates there
are currently 2,000 or so men from special police units in Kiev, as well
as 3,000 interior ministry gendarmes from the so-called BBVV force.Up to 35,000 more could be bussed in from other cities if need be.Over the past few years, Yanukovych has surrounded himself with loyal security chiefs who are unlikely to hold him back.One group is linked to his home region of Donetsk, in Russophone
eastern Ukraine, where many people feel little love for the EU or for
Ukrainian speakers in the west of the country.It includes interior minister Vitaliy Zakharchenko, National Security
Council chief Andriy Klyuyev, and Yanukovych’s head of personal
security, Volodymyr Radchenko.A second group has direct links to Russia and includes the new head
of the SBU, Oleksandr Yakymenko, who served in the Russian army.Zakharchenko and Klyuyev control the special police and the BBVV,
which has access to military-grade weapons and armoured vehicles.In the worst case scenario, analysts say that if Yanukovych gives an
order to open fire on crowds it will probably be carried out by Berkut
from east Ukraine, because other officers might refuse to do it.“One never knows what will happen until such an order is actually
issued,” Mark Galeotti, a US expert on security forces in former Soviet
countries, told this website.“But if a regime is willing to be brutal, it usually wins: That’s the psychology of public order. Most people are not heroes.”Alongside the Berkut and the BBVV, the main role of the SBU is to
snoop on the opposition and to advise Yanukovych how to handle the
situation.Given that further bloodshed is likely to sever Ukraine’s ties with
the EU, serving Russian interests, its advisory role could be
significant.The former SBU chief, Nalyvaichenko, says that he tried to reform the
service by weeding out Russian infiltrators and increasing
parliamentary oversight “but the reforms were totally stopped three and a
half years ago” when Yanukovych came to power.Galeotti described the SBU as “Russia’s trojan horse in Ukraine.”For his part, Eerik Kross, a former director of Estonia’s
intelligence service, told EUobserver: “I don’t think Yanukovych takes
orders from Moscow, but Moscow has plenty of channels of influence in
Kiev.”Looking at the wider picture, Kross noted that Russia sees EU and
Nato efforts to build closer ties with Ukraine, as well as Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia and Moldova, as a “fight for a zone of
influence.”“Ukraine is on the brink. Russia already has Armenia. Belarus is
gone. Georgia is a big question mark and Azerbaijan, for other reasons,
is not so interested in the EU,” he said.“Right now, the West has only Moldova, and even here 20 percent is
occupied by Russian troops,” he added, referring to Russian
“peacekeepers” in Moldova’s breakaway region of Transniestria.
ISAIAH 17:1,11-14
1 The burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap.
11 In the day shalt thou make thy plant to grow, and in the morning shalt thou make thy seed to flourish: but the harvest shall be a heap in the day of grief and of desperate sorrow.
12 Woe to the multitude of many people, which make a noise like the noise of the seas; and to the rushing of nations,(USELESS U.N) that make a rushing like the rushing of mighty waters!
13 The nations shall rush like the rushing of many waters: but God shall rebuke them, and they shall flee far off, and shall be chased as the chaff of the mountains before the wind, and like a rolling thing before the whirlwind.
14 And behold at evening tide trouble; and before the morning he is not.(ASSAD KILLED IN OVERNIGHT RAID) This is the portion of them that spoil us,(ISRAEL) and the lot of them that rob us.
AMOS 1:5
5 I will break also the bar of Damascus, and cut off the inhabitant from the plain of Aven, and him that holdeth the sceptre from the house of Eden:(IRAQ) and the people of Syria shall go into captivity unto Kir,(JORDAN) saith the LORD.
JEREMEIAH 49:23-27
23 Concerning Damascus.(SYRIA) Hamath is confounded, and Arpad: for they have heard evil tidings: they are fainthearted; there is sorrow on the sea;(WAR SHIPS WITH NUKES COMING ON SYRIA) it cannot be quiet.
24 Damascus is waxed feeble, and turneth herself to flee, and fear hath seized on her: anguish and sorrows have taken her, as a woman in travail.
25 How is the city of praise not left, the city of my joy!
26 Therefore her young men shall fall in her streets, and all the men of war shall be cut off in that day, saith the LORD of hosts.
27 And I will kindle a fire (NUKES OR BOMBS) in the wall of Damascus, and it shall consume the palaces of Benhadad.(ASSADS PALACES POSSIBLY IN DAMASCUS)
PSALMS 83:3-7
3 They (ARABS,MUSLIMS) have taken crafty counsel against thy people,(ISRAEL) and consulted against thy hidden ones.
4 They have said, Come, and let us cut them off from being a nation; that the name of Israel may be no more in remembrance.
5 For they (MUSLIMS) have consulted together with one consent: they are confederate against thee:(TREATIES)
6 The tabernacles of Edom,(JORDAN) and the Ishmaelites;(ARABS) of Moab, PALESTINIANS,JORDAN) and the Hagarenes;(EGYPT)
7 Gebal,(HEZZBALLOH,LEBANON) and Ammon,(JORDAN) and Amalek;(SYRIA,ARABS,SINAI) the Philistines (PALESTINIANS) with the inhabitants of Tyre;(LEBANON)
JEREMIAH 47:1-7
1 The word of the LORD that came to Jeremiah the prophet against the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN/ARABS) before that Pharaoh smote Gaza.
2 Thus saith the LORD; Behold, waters rise up out of the north,(NORTHERN TSUNAMI POSSIBLY) and shall be an overflowing flood, and shall overflow the land, and all that is therein; the city, and them that dwell therein: then the men shall cry, and all the inhabitants of the land shall howl.
3 At the noise of the stamping of the hoofs of his strong horses,(ISRAELS ARMY) at the rushing of his chariots, and at the rumbling of his wheels, the fathers shall not look back to their children for feebleness of hands;(ISRAEL POSSIBLY NUKES GAZA)
4 Because of the day that cometh to spoil all the Philistines,(PALESTINIAN FAKE ARABS) and to cut off from Tyrus and Zidon every helper that remaineth: for the LORD will spoil the Philistines, the remnant of the country of Caphtor.
5 Baldness is come upon Gaza;(NUKED POSSIBLY) Ashkelon is cut off with the remnant of their valley: how long wilt thou cut thyself?
6 O thou sword of the LORD, how long will it be ere thou be quiet? put up thyself into thy scabbard, rest, and be still.
7 How can it be quiet, seeing the LORD hath given it a charge against Ashkelon, and against the sea shore? (MEDITTERANEAN SEA) there hath he appointed it.
UN: More than 140,000 Iraqis flee Anbar province as clashes with al-Qaida militants intensify
By Sameer N. Yacoub, The Associated Press -JAN 24,14-yahoonews
BAGHDAD
- A United Nations official says more than 140,000 Iraqis have fled
parts of Anbar province over clashes between security forces and
al-Qaida militants.The spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner
for Refugees, Peter Kessler, described it as "the largest" displacement
witnessed in the country since the sectarian violence of 2006-2008.He added that more than 65,000 people fled the conflict in the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah just in the past week alone.Since
late December, members of Iraq's al-Qaida branch — known as the Islamic
State of Iraq and the Levant — have taken over parts of Ramadi, the
capital of the largely Sunni province of Anbar. They also control the
centre of the nearby city of Fallujah.
Syrian govt threatens to walk out of peace talks if 'serious' discussions don't start soon
By Zeina Karam And Lori Hinnant, The Associated Press -JAN 24,14-yahoonews
GENEVA
- Syria's government handed an ultimatum to a U.N. mediator hoping to
broker peace in the country's civil war, vowing to leave if "serious
talks" do not begin by Saturday.The delegation chosen by President Bashar Assad met for less than 90
minutes Friday with U.N. mediator Lakhdar Brahimi as part of a peace
conference with the Western-backed opposition. The meeting has been on
the verge of falling apart ever since it was conceived.In Geneva, Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told Brahimi that
if "serious talks don't begin Saturday, the official Syrian delegation
will have to leave because the other party is not serious or ready,"
according to Syrian state television.Direct talks planned for Friday between the Syrian government and the
Syrian National Coalition were scrapped, and the opposition was to meet
separately with Brahimi later at the U.N. European headquarters.The Syrian government blamed the coalition for the lack of direct
negotiations, which were seen as the best hope for an eventual end to
the three-year civil war that has killed at least 130,000 people.The bloodshed has destabilized the entire region and turned Syria
into a magnet for al-Qaida-inspired militants. The two sides blame each
other for the descent into chaos.
"Transition to a free Syria is the key to fighting terror," said
Oubai Shahbandar, a senior adviser to the Syrian opposition, which has
demanded Assad's departure.As the peace conference faltered, fighting raged throughout parts of
Syria, including near Damascus. Government forces bombed rebel-held
areas in the northern city of Aleppo, according to the British-based
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and local activists.Underscoring the extent of foreign involvement in the conflict,
Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah fighters fought alongside forces loyal to
Assad around the area of eastern Ghuta, the British-based Syrian
Observatory said. The rebels clashing against them included extremists
from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, a hardline group
dominated by foreign jihadis, the Observatory reported.In Switzerland, Bouthaina Shaaban, an adviser to Assad who travelled
to Geneva for the talks, questioned whether the opposition coalition —
made up largely of exiles based in Turkey — was prepared to negotiate an
end to the violence.
"We came here with Syria and the Syrian people on our mind, only
while they came here with positions and posts on their mind," she said.The coalition's head, Ahmad al-Jarba, said late Thursday that he was
committed to the talks and would give his negotiators full authority on
their pace and scope. But on Friday, his chief of staff said the
negotiations were never expected to be easy or quick, insisting that the
coalition was simply not yet prepared to meet directly with the
government."Everyone knows that these are proximity negotiations," said the
aide, Monzer Akbik. "And for the time being, that's the way it is going
to be."Both sides have spent their time so far in Switzerland affirming
positions hardened after nearly three years of fighting. They blamed
each other for turning a once-thriving country into ruin and called each
other terrorists.
But their willingness to meet with Brahimi — even separately — gave
the first sense that the negotiations might bear some fruit. Brahimi
himself has said both sides had shown willingness to bend on
humanitarian corridors, prisoner exchanges and local cease-fires — even
if the terms were still murky.A senior U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity because
the talks are sensitive, said the peace conference had not collapsed and
that Brahimi "still plans to meet with the regime and the opposition
together."Haitham al-Maleh, a senior member of the opposition, told The
Associated Press there was not enough common ground for direct talks on
Friday.The Syrian National Coalition, which is made up largely of exiles,
lacks influence with an increasingly radicalized rebellion, which has
been pulled apart by an influx of militants. Infighting among rebels has
left 1,400 people dead in the past 20 days, according to activists, who
have counted more than 130,000 deaths since the rebellion began in
2011.___Associated Press reporters Desmond Butler in Istanbul, Turkey; Bassem
Mroue in Beirut, Lebanon; and Matthew Lee in Davos, Switzerland,
contributed.___Follow Zeina Karam at: https://twitter.com/zkaram -Follow Lori Hinnant at: https://twitter.com/lhinnant
CBC – JAN 25,14-yahoonews
The
fire that destroyed a L'Isle-Verte, Que., seniors' home and killed at
least eight people started in a resident's room, sources have told
Radio-Canada.According to the police source, one of the residents asked an
employee for permission to go outside to smoke a cigarette. The employee
reportedly refused. The fire began shortly thereafter.The resident's balcony door was open upon the arrival of firefighters, the source said.CBC and Radio-Canada have confirmed the deaths of three people with their family members:
